Of the entire project of the broad state reform of Speransky, only the most unimportant part of it came into effect (January 1, 1810) - the establishment of the State Council. On May 1, 1810, it was supposed to appoint elections of deputies to the State Duma, and on September 1 - to open it. But these parts of Speransky's reform were delayed and then cancelled. The reason was the stubborn opposition of conservative dignitaries. They pointed to the numerous particular shortcomings of Speransky's reform project and the inadmissibility of such a broad and rapid state transformation in the face of the already brewing struggle against Europe united by Napoleon. The largest Russian writer Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin criticized Speransky's reform in a special note "On the ancient and new Russia”, proving the need to maintain a strong autocracy.

Opposition to Speransky at the top and widespread dissatisfaction with a number of his measures among the population forced Alexander I in March 1812 to dismiss the reformer from all posts and exile him to Nizhny Novgorod, and then to Perm. However, in 1819 Speransky again received a high position (Governor-General of Siberia). In 1821 he was returned to St. Petersburg and made a member of the State Council established by his own project. During the years of exile, Speransky revised many of his previous views and now often expressed opinions that were completely opposite to them..

At the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I, an experienced lawyer Speransky was entrusted with important work to streamline (without changes) the existing state legislation. Such streamlining has not been carried out since the publication of the Council Code of 1649. The result of this work of Speransky was the publication of the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire and the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (1833).

I find two conditions in Russia: the sovereign's slaves and the landlord's slaves. The former are called free only in relation to the latter; there are no really free people in Russia, except for beggars and philosophers.

The reign of Alexander 1 is marked by numerous reforms that affected almost all aspects of the state's life. One of the inspirers of changes in Russia at that time was Mikhail Speransky, who proposed to radically reform the political structure of the country, organizing its authorities on the principle of separation of branches of power. These ideas are known today as Speransky's reforms, which we will briefly review in this material. The reforms themselves were carried out in the period from 1802 to 1812 and were of great importance for Russia at that time.

The main provisions of the Speransky reform project

Speransky's reforms are usually divided into three stages: 1802-1807, 1808-1810, 1811-1812. Let's consider each of the stages in more detail.

First stage (1802-1807)

At this stage, Speransky did not hold positions of particular importance, but at the same time, taking part in the "Secret Committee", together with Kochubey, he developed a ministerial reform. As a result, the boards that had been created under Peter 1 were liquidated, then were abolished by Catherine, however, in the years of Paul 1 they again resumed their activities as the main state bodies under the emperor. After 1802 ministries were created instead of colleges. The Cabinet of Ministers was created to coordinate the work of the Ministries. In addition to these transformations, Speransky published a number of reports on the role of law in the life of the state and the need for a competent distribution of responsibilities among state bodies. These studies became the basis for the next stages of Speransky's reforms.

Second stage (1808-1810)

After increasing the emperor's confidence and being appointed to important government positions, in 1809 Speransky prepared one of the most important documents in his political career - "Introduction to the Code of State Laws." It was a plan for the reforms of the Russian Empire. Historians note the following key provisions of this document as a system that quite clearly characterizes Speransky's reforms:

1. At the heart of the political power of the state. Division of branches into legislative, executive and judicial. Speransky drew this idea from the ideas of the French Enlightenment, in particular Montesquieu. Legislative power was to be exercised by the State Duma, executive power by the already established Ministries, and judicial power by the Senate.
2. Creation of an advisory body under the emperor, the State Council. This body was supposed to prepare draft laws, which would then be submitted to the Duma, where, after voting, they could become laws.
3. Social transformations. The reform was supposed to carry out the division of Russian society into three classes: the first - the nobility, the second ("middle class") - merchants, petty bourgeois and state peasants, the third - the "working people".
4. Implementation of the idea of ​​"natural law". Civil rights (the right to life, arrest only by court order, etc.) for all three estates, and political rights should have belonged only to the "free people", that is, the first two estates.
5. Social mobility was allowed. With the accumulation of capital, serfs could redeem themselves, and therefore become the second estate, and therefore receive political rights.
6. The State Duma is an elected body. Elections were to be held in 4 stages, thereby creating regional authorities. First of all, the two estates elected the volost duma, whose members elected the county duma, whose deputies, in turn, formed the provincial duma with their votes. Deputies at the provincial level elected the State Duma.
7. The leadership of the Duma passed to the Chancellor appointed by the emperor.

After the publication of this project, Speransky, together with the Emperor, began to implement the ideas. On January 1, 1810, an advisory body was organized - the State Council. Mikhail Speransky himself was appointed its head. In theory, this body was supposed to become a temporary legislative body until the Duma is formed. Also, the Council was supposed to manage the finances of the empire.

Third stage (1811-1812)

Despite the incompleteness of the implementation of the first stage of the reforms, in 1811 Speransky published the Code of the Governing Senate. This document suggested:

1. He proposed to divide the Senate into the Governing (issues of local government) and the Judicial (the main body of the judicial branch of power in the Russian Empire).
2. Create a vertical of the judiciary. Provincial, district and volost courts should be created.
3. He expressed the idea of ​​granting civil rights to serfs.

This draft, like the first document of 1809, remained just a draft. At the time of 1812, only one idea of ​​Speransky was implemented - the creation of the State Council.

Why did Alexander 1 not dare to implement Speransky's project?

Criticism of Speransky began as early as 1809 after the publication of the Introduction to the Code of State Laws. Alexander 1 perceived Speransky's criticism as his own. In addition, since Speransky's reforms were based largely on the ideas of the French Enlightenment, he was criticized for trying to "flirt" with Napoleon. As a result, a group of influential conservative-minded nobility formed in the Russian Empire, which criticized the emperor for trying to "destroy the historical foundations" of the Russian state. One of the most famous critics of Speransky, his contemporary, the famous historian Karamzin. Most of all, the nobility resented the desire to give political rights to state peasants, as well as the idea to give civil rights to all classes of the empire, including serfs.

Speransky took part in the financial reform. As a result, the taxes that the nobles had to pay had to increase. This fact also set the nobility against the head of the State Council.

Thus, we can note the main reasons why the implementation of the Speransky project was not carried out:

1. Huge resistance of the Russian nobility.
2. Not the determination of the emperor himself to carry out reforms.
3. The unwillingness of the emperor to form a system of "three powers", since this significantly limited the role of the emperor himself in the country.
4. A possible war with Napoleonic France, which, however, only suspended the reforms, if there were no other reasons for their complete stop.

Causes and consequences of Speransky's resignation

Given the distrust and protests from the nobility, Speransky was constantly under pressure. The only thing that saved him from losing his position was the confidence of the emperor, which lasted until 1812. So, in 1811, the Secretary of State himself personally asked the emperor for his resignation, because he felt that his ideas would not be implemented. However, the emperor did not accept the resignation. Since 1811, the number of denunciations against Speransky has also increased. He was accused of many crimes: slandering the emperor, secret negotiations with Napoleon, an attempted coup d'état and other meanness. Despite these statements, the emperor presented Speransky with the Order of Alexander Nevsky. However, with the spread of rumors and criticism of Speransky, a shadow fell on the emperor himself. As a result, in March 1812, Alexander signed a decree on the removal of Speransky from the duties of a civil servant. Thus, Speransky's state reforms were also terminated.

On March 17, a personal meeting between Speransky and Alexander 1 took place in the office of the Winter Palace, the content of this conversation is still a mystery to historians. But already in September, the former second person in the empire after the emperor was sent into exile in Nizhny Novgorod, and on September 15 they were transferred to Perm. In 1814 he was allowed to return to his estate in the Novgorod province, but only under political supervision. Since 1816, Mikhail Speransky even returned to public service, becoming the Governor of Penza, and in 1819 he became the Governor-General of Siberia. In 1821 he was appointed head of the commission for drafting laws, for which he received a state award during the years of Nicholas I. In 1839 he died of a cold, before his death he was included in the list of count families of the Russian Empire.

The main result of Speransky's activity

Despite the fact that Speransky's reforms were never implemented, they continued to be discussed in Russian society even after the death of the reformer. In 1864, during the judicial reform, Speransky's ideas regarding the vertical of the judicial system were taken into account. In 1906, the first State Duma in the history of Russia began its work. Therefore, despite the incompleteness, Speransky's project had a huge impact on the political life of Russian society.

Personality Speransky

Mikhail Speransky was born in 1772 into a modest family, his parents belonged to the lower clergy. A career as a priest awaited him, but after graduating from the seminary, he was offered to remain a teacher. Later, the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg himself recommended Mikhail for the position of house secretary for Prince Alexei Kurakin. The latter, a year later, became Prosecutor General under Paul 1. This is how the political career of Mikhail Speransky began. In 1801-1802, he met P. Kochubey, began to take part in the work of the "Secret Committee" under Alexander 1, for the first time showing a penchant for reform. For his contribution to the work of the "committee" in 1806 he received the Order of St. Vladimir, 3rd degree. Thanks to his reports on legal topics, he has established himself as an excellent connoisseur of jurisprudence, as well as an expert in the field of state theory. It was then that the emperor began to systematize Speransky's reforms in order to use them to change Russia.

After the signing of the Peace of Tilsit in 1807, the "Unspoken Committee" opposed the truce with France. Speransky himself supported the actions of Alexander, in addition, he expressed interest in the reforms of Napoleon Bonaparte. In this regard, the emperor removes the "Secret Committee" from its activities. Thus begins the rise of Mikhail Speransky as a reformer of the Russian Empire.

In 1808 he became deputy minister of justice, and in 1810 the main appointment of his life took place: he became the state secretary of the State Council, the second person in the country after the emperor. In addition, from 1808 to 1811 Speransky was Chief Procurator of the Senate.

I decided with the help of a new round of reform activities. With the cooling of the tsar towards the members of the Unspoken Committee, a need arose for new faces, who, however, had to continue the previous direction of reforms. The emperor quickly found a man who met these requirements. They became M. M. Speransky.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772-1839) came from the family of a poor rural priest. After graduating from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, he worked for some time as a teacher, and then as a secretary for Prince A. B. Kurakin, a favorite of Paul I. When the prince was appointed Prosecutor General of the Senate, Speransky began working as an official in the Senate under Kurakin. In a short time, he proved himself to be a truly indispensable and very capable person. At the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, he was among the main actors in the government, although he did not initially hold major government posts.

Members of the Private Committee involved Speransky in summarizing the materials of their discussions, and then began to entrust him with drafting projects on the topics they had set. In 1803-1807. Speransky already had the post of director of one of the departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was closest to V.P. Kochubey, the all-powerful Minister of the Interior. During the illness of the minister, Speransky was instructed to personally report to the emperor on the state of affairs instead of him. These reports showed Alexander that Speransky was the man he needed. In addition, unlike the tsar's inner circle, Speransky did not oppose the Peace of Tilsit, sympathizing in his soul with the laws established in France by Napoleon.

The ascent of Speransky to the heights of state power began. From 1807 he was the emperor's secretary of state, and from 1808 he was deputy minister of justice, who was also the prosecutor general of the Senate.

Political Reform Project: Intentions and Results.

Speransky proposed the first draft of political reforms to the tsar as early as 1803 in his "Note on the Organization of Judicial and Government Institutions in Russia". He raised the question of the need for a cautious introduction of a constitutional monarchy in the country and thus preventing a "French revolutionary nightmare" for Russia. However, it was not until after the Peace of Tilsit that the tsar commissioned him to draw up a plan for a comprehensive reform of public administration. Such a project was ready by October 1809.

They became the "Introduction to the Code of State Laws", which contained the following provisions:

The government of the state should be carried out on the basis of the separation of powers: the legislative power belongs to a new elected institution;

State Duma; executive power is exercised by ministries; judicial power belongs to the Senate;

Another new body - the State Council - was to become an advisory body under the emperor and consider all draft laws before they were submitted to the Duma;

- three main classes of Russian society were established:

1) nobility,

2) "average condition" (merchants, petty bourgeois, state peasants),

3) "working people" (serfs, domestic servants, workers);

Political rights were to belong to representatives of the "free" (first two) estates; however, the third estate received general civil rights (the main among them was the provision that “no one can be punished without a court sentence”) and could, as property and capital accumulated, move into the second estate; the first estate also retained special rights (to buy estates with serfs, etc.);

Only persons who possessed movable and immovable property (that is, representatives of the first two estates) received the right to vote;

Elections to the State Duma were supposed to be four-stage (at first, elections were held to volost dumas, then the deputies of these bodies elected members of district dumas, which, in turn, elected deputies of provincial dumas. And only provincial dumas elected deputies of the State Duma);

The chancellor appointed by the tsar was to supervise the work of the Duma.

The implementation of the Speransky project was to become important step on the path to reform. This plan would eventually be developed in other transformations. The reformer saw the ultimate goal in limiting the autocratic power of the tsar and eliminating serfdom.

Alexander I generally approved of Speransky's project. However, it should be implemented gradually, without causing upheavals in society. With this in mind, the tsar decided first to launch the most "harmless" part of the reform.

On January 1, 1810, a manifesto on the establishment of the Council of State was published. His main task was to restore order in the preparation and adoption of laws. All their projects now had to be considered only through the State Council. The Council assessed not only the content of the laws, but also the very need for their adoption. His tasks also included "clarification" of the meaning of laws, taking measures for their implementation. In addition, members of the Council were to consider the reports of the ministries and make proposals on the distribution of state revenues and expenditures.

The Council of State was called upon to become not a legislative, but a legislative body under the emperor, an instrument of his legislative power.

In 1811, Speransky prepared a draft Code of the Governing Senate, which was to be the next step on the path of political reform. Based on the idea of ​​separation of powers, he proposed to divide the Senate into the Governing (in charge of local government) and the Judicial (which is the highest judicial authority and controls all judicial institutions). This project, however, was not carried out.

Conducted in 1810 - 1811. transformations, as well as the desire to grant civil rights to serfs, caused such a storm of indignation among senior officials and most of the nobles that Alexander was forced to stop implementing the reforms: the fate of his father was too fresh in his memory.

The resignation of M. M. Speransky: causes and consequences.

Speransky, on behalf of the emperor, also developed projects economic reforms. They provided for the limitation of state spending and some increase in taxes, which affected the nobility. Opposition to reforms in these conditions began to be open. Such authoritative people as, for example, N. M. Karamzin, one of the ideologists of conservatism, joined in criticizing the government.

Alexander was well aware that Speransky's sharp criticism was, in essence, directed at his own address. Speransky was further accused of betrayal for his sympathy for the order in France, which he allegedly wanted to introduce in Russia to please Napoleon. The tsar could no longer hold back the wave of criticism and decided to dismiss Speransky. Not the last role here was played by the intention of the emperor to unite society on the eve of the approaching war with Napoleon. In March 1812 Speransky was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod and then to Perm.

Despite the fact that Speransky's reforms did not touch the foundations of the feudal-autocratic system, they were almost never implemented in practice. At the same time, Speransky's reformist searches formed the basis on which new reform projects were developed in the future.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Good work to site">

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

Introduction

Speransky state reform

In the first half of the 19th century, the state and social order of the Russian Empire was on the same basis. The nobility, constituting a small part of the population, remained the dominant, privileged class. Freed from compulsory service to the state, the landlords turned from the service class into an idle, purely consumer class.

State policy expressed the interests of the bulk of the nobility. The growing contradiction of the feudal system in Russia was reflected in the confrontation and clash between liberal and protective ideologies.

At the beginning of his reign, Alexander I promised to govern the people "according to the laws and according to the heart of his wise grandmother." The main concern of the government was proclaimed the preparation of radical (basic) laws for the destruction of the "arbitrariness of government." Court nobles were involved in the discussion of reform projects. Relatively minor issues and scattered reforms of some state institutions were discussed, until the talented thinker and statesman M.M. Speransky (1772-1839).

The purpose of the control work is to review the main reform projects developed by M.M. Speransky.

The objectives of this abstract are:

1. coverage of the biography of M.M. Speransky

2. disclosing the essence of reform projects

3. consideration of the circumstances of Speransky's excommunication from public affairs.

Chapter 1. Biography of M.M. Speransky

Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was born in January 1772 in the family of a village priest in the village of Cherkutin, Vladimir province. His father assigned him to the Suzdal Theological Seminary. In January 1790 he was sent to St. Petersburg to the newly founded First Theological Seminary. After graduating from the seminary in 1792, Speransky was left as a teacher of mathematics, physics and eloquence, and French. Speransky taught all subjects with great success. Since 1795, he also began to lecture on philosophy and received the post of "prefect of the seminary." The thirst for knowledge forced him to go to the civil service. He thought of going abroad and completing his education at German universities.

Petersburg Metropolitan Gabriel recommended him as a personal secretary to Prince Kurakin. In 1796, Kurakin, who was appointed to the position of Prosecutor General, took Speransky into the civil service and instructed him to manage his office. Speransky brought to the Russian untidy office of the 18th century. an unusually straightened mind, capable of endless work and excellent ability to speak and write. In all this, of course, he was a real find for the stationery world. This prepared him for an unusually fast service career. Already under Paul, he gained fame in the St. Petersburg bureaucratic world. In January 1797, Speransky received the rank of titular councilor, in April of the same year - a collegiate assessor (this rank gave personal nobility), in January 1798 - a court adviser, and in September 1799 - a collegiate adviser.

In November 1798 he married an Englishwoman, Elizabeth Stevens. His happy life was short - in September 1799, shortly after the birth of his daughter, his wife died.

Speransky was distinguished by his broad outlook and strict systemic thinking. By the nature of his education, he was an ideologist, as they said then, or a theoretician, as they would call him now. His mind has grown in hard work on abstract concepts and has become accustomed to treat simple everyday phenomena with disdain. Speransky had an unusually strong mind, of which there are always few, and in that philosophical age there were fewer than ever. Persistent work on abstractions imparted extraordinary energy and flexibility to Speransky's thinking. He easily came up with the most difficult and bizarre combinations of ideas. Thanks to this thinking, Speransky became an embodied system, but it was precisely this increased development of abstract thinking that constituted an important shortcoming in his practical activity. By long and hard work, Speransky prepared for himself an extensive store of diverse knowledge and ideas. In this reserve there was a lot of luxury that satisfied the refined requirements of mental comfort, there was, perhaps, even a lot of excess and too little of what was needed for the base needs of man, for understanding reality. In this he resembled Alexander, and in this they agreed with each other. But Speransky differed from the sovereign in that the first had all the mental luxury tidied up and neatly placed in its place. The most intricate question in his presentation acquired an orderly harmony.

Chapter 2 Projects of state reforms M.M. Speransky

Alexander I, who ascended the throne as a result of the assassination of Paul I, at the beginning of his reign promised to rule the people "according to the laws and according to the heart of his wise grandmother." The main concern of the government was proclaimed the preparation of radical (basic) laws for the destruction of the "arbitrariness of government." Court nobles were involved in the discussion of reform projects. Relatively minor issues and disparate reforms of some state institutions were discussed, until the talented thinker and statesman Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772-1839) got into the emperor's entourage.

On the instructions of Alexander I, Speransky prepared a number of projects for improving the state system of the empire, in essence, drafts of the Russian constitution. Some of the projects were written in 1802-1804; in 1809, the extensive Introduction to the Code of State Laws, the Draft Code of State Laws of the Russian Empire, and related notes and projects were prepared.

2.1 Public administration reform

A supporter of the constitutional order, Speransky was convinced that new rights to society must be granted by the authorities. A society divided into estates, whose rights and obligations are established by law, needs civil and criminal law, public conduct of court cases, and freedom of the press. Speransky attached great importance to the education of public opinion.

At the same time, he believed that Russia was not ready for a constitutional system, that it was necessary to start reforms with the reorganization of the state apparatus.

The period 1808-1811 was the era of the highest importance and influence of Speransky, about whom it was at this time that Joseph de Maistre wrote that he was "the first and even the only minister" of the empire: the reform of the state council (1810), the reform of ministers (1810-1811) , reform of the Senate (1811-1812). The young reformer, with his characteristic fervor, set about drawing up a complete plan for the new formation of state administration in all its parts: from the sovereign's office to the volost government. Already on December 11, 1808, he read to Alexander I his note "On the improvement of general public education." Not later than October 1809, the whole plan was already on the emperor's desk. October and November passed in an almost daily review of its various parts, in which Alexander I made his own corrections and additions.

The views of the new reformer M. M. Speransky are most fully reflected in the note of 1809 - "Introduction to the Code of State Laws." Speransky's "Code" opens with a serious theoretical study of "the properties and objects of state, indigenous and organic laws." He additionally explained and substantiated his thoughts on the basis of the theory of law or, rather, the philosophy of law. The reformer attached great importance to the regulatory role of the state in the development of domestic industry and, through his political transformations, strengthened the autocracy in every possible way. Speransky writes: “If the rights of state power were unlimited, if the forces of the state were united in sovereign power and they would not leave any rights to subjects, then the state would be in slavery and rule would be despotic.”

According to Speransky, such slavery can take two forms. The first form not only excludes subjects from any participation in the exercise of state power, but also deprives them of the freedom to dispose of their own person and property. The second, softer one, also excludes subjects from participating in government, but leaves them freedom in relation to their own person and property. Consequently, subjects do not have political rights, but civil rights remain with them. And their presence means that there is freedom to some extent in the state. But it is not guaranteed enough, therefore - explains Speransky - it is necessary to protect it - through the creation and strengthening of the basic law, that is, the Political Constitution.

Civil rights must be enumerated in it "in the form of initial civil consequences arising from political rights", and political rights must be given to citizens by which they will be able to defend their rights and their civil liberty. So, according to Speransky, civil rights and freedoms are insufficiently secured by laws and law. Without constitutional guarantees, they are powerless in themselves, therefore, it was precisely the requirement to strengthen the civil system that formed the basis of Speransky's entire plan of state reforms and determined their main idea - "rule, hitherto autocratic, to establish and establish on the basis of law." The idea is that state power must be built on a permanent basis, and the government must stand on a solid constitutional and legal basis. This idea stems from the tendency to find in the fundamental laws of the state a solid foundation for civil rights and freedoms. It bears the desire to ensure the connection of the civil system with the fundamental laws and firmly establish it, precisely relying on these laws. The transformation plan involved a change in the social structure and a change in the state order. Speransky dismembers society on the basis of the difference in rights. “From a review of civil and political rights, it becomes clear that all of them, in their belonging to three classes, can be divided: Civil rights are common to all subjects; the nobility; Middle class people; The working people." The entire population seemed to be civilly free, and serfdom was abolished, although, establishing "civil freedom for the landlord peasants", Speransky at the same time continues to call them "serfs". The nobles retained the right to own populated lands and freedom from compulsory service. The working people consisted of peasants, artisans and servants. Speransky's grandiose plans began to come true. Back in the spring of 1809, the emperor approved the “Regulations on the composition and management of the commission for drafting laws” developed by Speransky, where for many years (until the new reign) the main directions of its activity were determined: “The works of the Commission have the following main subjects:

1. Code Civil. 2. Code Criminal. 3. Code Commercial. 4. Various parts belonging to the State Economy and to public law. 5. Code of provincial laws for the Ostsee provinces. 6. Code of laws for those provinces of Little Russian and Polish annexed.

Speransky speaks of the need to create a rule of law state, which should ultimately be a constitutional state. He explains that the security of a person and property is the first inalienable property of any society, since inviolability is the essence of civil rights and freedoms, which have two types: personal freedoms and material freedoms. Content of personal freedoms:

1. No one can be punished without trial; 2. No one is obliged to send a personal service, except by law. The content of material freedoms: 1. Everyone can dispose of his property at will, in accordance with the general law; 2. No one is obliged to pay taxes and duties otherwise than according to the law, and not according to arbitrariness. Thus, we see that Speransky everywhere perceives the law as a method of protecting security and freedom. However, he sees that guarantees are also needed against the arbitrariness of the legislator. The reformer approaches the requirement of a constitutional-legal limitation of power, so that it takes into account the existing law. This would give her more stability.

Speransky considers it necessary to have a system of separation of powers. Here he fully accepts the ideas that then dominated Western Europe, and writes in his work that: "It is impossible to base government on the law if one sovereign power will draw up the law and execute it." Therefore, Speransky sees a reasonable structure of state power in its division into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial, while maintaining the autocratic form. Since the discussion of bills involves the participation of a large number of people, it is necessary to create special bodies representing the legislative power - the Duma.

Speransky proposes to involve the population (personally free, including state peasants, in the presence of a property qualification) to direct participation in the legislative, executive and judicial power on the basis of a system of four-stage elections (volost - district - provincial - State Duma). If this plan had received a real embodiment, the fate of Russia would have been different, alas, history does not know the subjunctive mood. The right to elect them cannot belong equally to all. Speransky stipulates that the more property a person has, the more he is interested in protecting property rights. And those who have neither real estate nor capital are excluded from the election process. Thus, we see that the democratic principle of universal and secret elections is alien to Speransky, and in contrast to this, he puts forward and attaches greater importance to the liberal principle of the division of power. At the same time, Speransky recommends broad decentralization, that is, along with the central State Duma, local dumas should also be created: volost, district and provincial. The Duma is called upon to resolve issues of a local nature. Without the consent of the State Duma, the autocrat had no right to legislate, except in cases where it was a question of saving the fatherland. However, in contrast, the emperor could always dissolve the deputies and call new elections. Consequently, the existence of the State Duma, as it were, was called upon to give only an idea of ​​the needs of the people and exercise control over the executive branch. Executive power is represented by boards, and at the highest level - by ministries, which were formed by the emperor himself. Moreover, the ministers had to be accountable to the State Duma, which was given the right to ask for the abolition of illegal acts. This is fundamentally new approach Speransky, expressed in the desire to put officials, both in the center and in the field, under the control of public opinion. The judicial branch of government was represented by regional, district and provincial courts, consisting of elected judges and acting with the participation of juries. The highest court was the Senate, whose members were elected for life by the State Duma and approved personally by the emperor.

The unity of state power, according to Speransky's project, would be embodied only in the personality of the monarch. This decentralization of legislation, courts and administration was supposed to give the central government itself the opportunity to solve with due attention those most important state affairs that would be concentrated in its bodies and which would not be obscured by the mass of current petty matters of local interest. This idea of ​​decentralization was all the more remarkable because it was not yet in the queue of Western European political thinkers, who were more concerned with developing questions about central government.

The monarch remained the only representative of all branches of government, heading them. Therefore, Speransky believed that it was necessary to create an institution that would take care of planned cooperation between individual authorities and would be, as it were, a concrete expression of the fundamental embodiment of state unity in the personality of the monarch. According to his plan, the State Council was to become such an institution. At the same time, this body was supposed to act as the guardian of the implementation of the legislation.

On January 1, 1810, a manifesto was announced on the creation of the Council of State, replacing the Permanent Council. M. M. Speransky received the post of state secretary in this body. He was in charge of all the documentation that passed through the State Council. Speransky initially envisaged the State Council in his reform plan as an institution that should not be particularly involved in the preparation and development of bills. But since the creation of the State Council was considered as the first stage of transformation and it was he who was supposed to establish plans for further reforms, at first this body was given wide powers. From now on, all bills had to pass through the State Council. The general meeting was composed of members of four departments: 1) legislative, 2) military affairs (until 1854), 3) civil and spiritual affairs, 4) state economy; and from ministers. The emperor himself presided over it. At the same time, it is stipulated that the king could only approve the opinion of the majority of the general meeting. The first chairman of the State Council (until August 14, 1814) was Chancellor Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev (1751_1826). The Secretary of State (new position) became the head of the State Chancellery.

Speransky not only developed, but also laid down a certain system of checks and balances in the activities of the highest state bodies under the supremacy of the emperor. He argued that already on the basis of this, the very direction of the reforms is set. So, Speransky considered Russia mature enough to start reforms and get a constitution that provides not only civil, but also political freedom. In a memorandum to Alexander I, he hopes that "if God blesses all undertakings, then by 1811 ... Russia will accept a new existence and be completely transformed in all parts." Speransky argues that there are no examples in history of an enlightened commercial people remaining in a state of slavery for a long time and that upheavals cannot be avoided if the state system does not correspond to the spirit of the times. Therefore, heads of state should closely monitor the development of the public spirit and adapt political systems to it. From this, Speransky drew the conclusion that it would be a great advantage to have a constitution in Russia thanks to the "beneficial inspiration of the supreme power." But the supreme power in the person of the emperor did not share all the points of Speransky's program. Alexander I was quite satisfied with only partial transformations of feudal Russia, flavored with liberal promises and abstract arguments about law and freedom. Alexander I was ready to accept all this. But meanwhile, he also experienced the strongest pressure from the court environment, including members of his family, who sought to prevent radical changes in Russia.

Also, one of the ideas was to improve the "bureaucratic army" for future reforms. On April 3, 1809, a decree was issued on court ranks. He changed the order of obtaining titles and certain privileges. Henceforth, these titles were to be regarded as mere insignia. Privileges were given only to those who performed public service. The decree, which reformed the procedure for obtaining court ranks, was signed by the emperor, but it was no secret to anyone who was its real author. For many decades, the offspring of the most noble families (literally from the cradle) received the court ranks of the chamber junker (respectively - 5th class), after a while - the chamberlain (4th class). When they entered the civil or military service upon reaching a certain age, they, who had never served anywhere, automatically occupied the “highest places”. By decree of Speransky, chamber junkers and chamberlains who were not in active service were ordered to find a kind of activity for themselves within two months (otherwise - resignation).

The second measure was the decree published on August 6, 1809 on new rules for promotion to civil service ranks, secretly prepared by Speransky. In a note to the sovereign under a very unpretentious title, a revolutionary plan was rooted for a radical change in the order of production to ranks, establishing a direct connection between obtaining a rank and an educational qualification. This was a bold attempt on the system of rank production, which has been in force since the era of Peter I. One can only imagine how many ill-wishers and enemies appeared in Mikhail Mikhailovich thanks to this decree alone. Speransky protests against the monstrous injustice when a graduate of the Faculty of Law receives ranks later than a colleague who never really studied anywhere. From now on, the rank of collegiate assessor, which previously could be obtained by seniority, was given only to those officials who had in their hands a certificate of successful completion of a course of study at one of the Russian universities or who passed exams in a special program. At the end of the note, Speransky speaks directly about the harmfulness of the existing system of ranks according to Peter's "Table of Ranks", suggesting either to cancel them or to regulate the receipt of ranks, starting from the 6th grade, by the presence of a university diploma. This program included testing knowledge of the Russian language, one of the foreign languages, natural, Roman, state and criminal law, general and Russian history, state economics, physics, geography and statistics of Russia. The rank of collegiate assessor corresponded to the 8th grade of the "Table of Ranks". Starting from this class and above, officials had great privileges and high salaries. It is easy to guess that there were many who wanted to get it, and most of the applicants, as a rule, middle-aged, simply could not take the exams. Hatred of the new reformer began to grow. The emperor, protecting his faithful comrade with his auspices, raised him up the career ladder.

Elements of market relations in the Russian economy were also covered in the projects of M. M. Speransky. He shared the ideas of the economist Adam Smith. Speransky tied the future economic development with the development of commerce, the transformation of the financial system and money circulation. In the first months of 1810, a discussion of the problem of regulation took place. public finance. Speransky drew up a "Finance Plan", which formed the basis of the tsar's manifesto of February 2. The main purpose of this document was to eliminate the budget deficit. According to its content, the issuance of paper money was stopped, the volume of financial resources was reduced, and the financial activities of ministers were put under control. In order to replenish the state treasury, the poll tax was increased from 1 ruble to 3, and a new, previously unprecedented tax was introduced - "progressive income". These measures gave a positive result and, as Speransky himself later noted, “by changing the financial system ... we saved the state from bankruptcy.” The budget deficit was reduced, and the treasury revenues increased by 175 million rubles in two years.

In the summer of 1810, at the initiative of Speransky, the reorganization of the ministries began, which was completed by June 1811. During this time, the Ministry of Commerce was liquidated, cases of internal security were allocated, for which a special police ministry was formed. The ministries themselves were divided into departments (with a director at the head), departments into departments. From the highest officials of the ministry, a council of the minister was formed, and from all the ministers, a committee of ministers to discuss administrative and executive affairs.

Clouds begin to gather over the head of the reformer. Speransky, contrary to the instinct of self-preservation, continues to work selflessly. In a report submitted to the emperor on February 11, 1811, Speransky reports: “/…/ the following main subjects were completed: I. The State Council was established. II. Completed two parts of the Civil Code. III. A new division of ministries has been made, a general charter has been drawn up for them, and draft charters for private ones have been drawn up. IV. A permanent system for the payment of state debts was drawn up and adopted: 1) by ceasing the issuance of banknotes; 2) sale of property; 3) setting a repayment commission. V. A monetary system has been drawn up. VI. A commercial code for 1811 was drawn up.

Never, perhaps, in Russia in the course of one year were so many general state decrees made as in the past. /…/ From this it follows that in order to successfully complete the plan that Your Majesty deigns to deign for himself, it is necessary to strengthen the methods of its implementation. /…/ the following subjects in terms of this seem to be absolutely necessary: ​​I. To complete the civil code. II. Draw up two very necessary codes: 1) judicial, 2) criminal. III. Complete the arrangement of the Judicial Senate. IV. Draw up the structure of the ruling Senate. V. Administration of the provinces in judicial and executive order. VI. Consider and strengthen ways to pay off debts. VII. Establish state annual revenues: 1) By introducing a new census of people. 2) The formation of a land tax. 3) A new wine income device. 4) best device income from public property. /…/ It can be stated with certainty that /…/ by committing them /…/ the empire will be placed in such a firm and reliable position that the age of Your Majesty will always be called a blessed century. Alas, the grandiose plans for the future outlined in the second part of the report remained unfulfilled (primarily the Senate reform).

By the beginning of 1811, Speransky also proposed a new project for the transformation of the Senate. The essence of the project was largely different from the original. It was supposed to divide the Senate into a government and a judiciary. The composition of the latter provided for the appointment of its members as follows: one part - from the crown, the other was chosen by the nobility. Due to various internal and external causes The Senate remained as it was, and Speransky himself eventually came to the conclusion that the project should be postponed. We also note that in 1810, according to the plan of Speransky, the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum was established.

Such was the general outline of the political reform. The state of serfdom, the court, administration, legislation - everything found its place and resolution in this grandiose work, which remained a monument of political talents far beyond the level of even highly talented people. Some reproach Speransky for paying little attention to the peasant reform. In Speransky we read: “The relations in which both these classes (peasants and landowners) are placed completely destroy all energy in the Russian people. The interest of the nobility requires that the peasants be completely subordinate to it; the interest of the peasantry is that the nobles were also subordinate to the crown ... The throne is always a serf as the only counterbalance to the property of their masters”, i.e. serfdom was incompatible with political freedom. “Thus, Russia, divided into various classes, exhausts its forces in the struggle that these classes wage among themselves, and leaves to the government the entire scope of unlimited power. A state structured in this way - that is, on the division of hostile classes - if it has one or another external structure - these and other letters to the nobility, letters to the cities, two senates and the same number of parliaments - is a despotic state, and as long as it consists of the same elements (warring classes), it will be impossible for it to be a monarchical state. The consciousness of the need, in the interests of the political reform itself, to abolish serfdom, as well as the consciousness of the need for the redistribution of power to correspond to the redistribution of political power, is evident from the argument.

2.2 Judicial reform

All sections of society were interested in the reform of the court, and most importantly, the ruling class. The judicial reform was also a consequence of the so-called crisis of the upper classes, the realization by the ruling elite of the need to create an effective mechanism for protecting the individual and property. And, of course, Emperor Alexander II himself, as well as his brother Konstantin Nikolayevich, who adhered to even more radical views, advocated judicial reform.

Preparation and principles of reform. The history of the preparation of judicial reform has its roots in the first half of the 19th century. In 1803 M.M. Speransky proposed a broad program for improving the judicial system, which was developed in the "Introduction to the Code of State Laws" of 1809. In 1821 and 1826 he returned to the projects of judicial reforms. However, the governments of Alexander I and Nicholas I rejected them, because these projects, albeit very timidly, proposed the implementation of certain bourgeois principles. In addition, judicial reforms could not be carried out in isolation, without solving the fundamental issues of public life, primarily the peasant one. As you know, Alexander I and Nicholas I were opposed to the abolition of serfdom. Therefore, the bourgeois principles of equality of all owners before the law, underlying the improvement of the judicial system M.M. Speransky, turned out to be unacceptable and premature for feudal Russia, where more than 50% of the population was in conditions of slavery and depended not on the law, but on the will and arbitrariness of the landowners.

In the summer of 1857, Alexander II ordered to submit to the State Council a draft of the Charter of Civil Procedure, born in the bowels of the II branch. An explanatory note was attached to the project by the head of the II department, Count D.N. Bludov. The project proceeded from the introduction of the principle of adversarial process, it was proposed to reduce the number of courts and pay attention to a significant improvement in the quality of training and selection of personnel in the judicial system. The draft Charter provoked a mixed reaction, splitting the highest bureaucracy into two main groups - liberals and conservatives. The former wanted a significant restructuring of the judiciary and legal proceedings, the latter only cosmetic changes. Conservatives and, above all, Count D.N. Bludov did not want to follow Western European models and introduce the principles of oral speech, publicity, equality of the parties in the process, and establish a bar. For 1857-1861 Section II prepared and submitted to the State Council 14 bills proposing various changes in the structure of the judiciary and the judiciary. The materials of the judicial reform amounted to 74 voluminous volumes.

The work was especially intensified after the abolition of serfdom. In October 1861, the preparation of documents on the judiciary and legal proceedings was transferred from the II Department to the State Chancellery. A special commission was created, which included the most prominent Russian lawyers: A.N. Plavsky, N.I. Stoyanovsky, S.I. Zarudny, K.P. Pobedonostsev and others. In fact, it was headed by State Secretary of the State Council S.I. Zarudny. It is important that the commission, which consisted mainly of like-minded people, took the path opposite to that of fornication. The general theory of the bourgeois judiciary and legal proceedings and the practice of Western European legislation were taken as a basis. Of course, the fathers of the reform had to reckon with Russian reality and traditions and made certain adjustments to their projects, but at the same time they tried to prove that bourgeois institutions, for example, the jury and the advocacy, in no way undermine the foundations of autocracy.

The result of the commission's work was the "Basic Provisions for the Transformation of the Judiciary in Russia". In April 1862, this document was submitted by the emperor for consideration to the State Council, and on September 29, 1862, it was approved by him and published in the press. Simultaneously with the promulgation of the "Basic Provisions", Count V.N. left the post of Minister of Justice. Panin, who on February 18, 1860 was temporarily released from the management of the Ministry on the occasion of his appointment as chairman of the Editorial Commission. By the highest decree of October 21, 1862, Dmitry Nikolaevich Zamyatin, comrade (deputy) minister, senator, privy councilor, was appointed Minister of Justice.

D.N. Zamyatin was born in 1805 in the Nizhny Novgorod province. After graduating with a silver medal from the course of sciences in Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, entered the service of the commission for the drafting of laws, and then the II branch of his imperial majesty's own office. Having made a reputation for himself as a capable, hardworking and impeccably honest official, he quickly moved up the career ladder. In 1848 he was appointed a member of the consultation at the Ministry of Justice, in 1852 - chief prosecutor of the second department of the Governing Senate and a senator. In 1858 he was appointed to the post of Deputy Minister of Justice. He was finally approved as Minister of Justice on January 1, 1864.

The legislative framework. Based on the "Basic Provisions", four laws were prepared, which were approved by the emperor on November 20, 1864: "Establishment of Judicial Institutions", "Charter of Civil Procedure", "Charter of Criminal Procedure", "Charter on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace".

Judicial reform radically changed the judiciary, procedural and partly substantive law of the Russian Empire. Judicial statutes were built in accordance with the procedural and organizational forms of bourgeois states. They proclaimed principles that were bourgeois in nature: the judiciary was separated from the legislative, executive, and administrative powers; the principle of independence and irremovability of judges was consolidated; the equality of all before the law was proclaimed, an all-estate court was introduced; the advocacy was established; for the consideration of criminal cases in district courts, the institution of jurors was introduced; an elected magistrate's court was created to consider minor cases; the institution of judicial investigators independent of the police was established; the prosecutor's office was reorganized, freed from the functions of general supervision and focused on work in court; introduced the principles of oral, public, adversarial legal proceedings; the presumption of innocence was proclaimed.

Changes in the judiciary. Fundamental changes in the judicial system of Russia were outlined in the "Institution of Judicial Establishments". Instead of the complex and cumbersome structure of class courts, two judicial systems: local and general courts.

The locals included: justices of the peace and congresses of justices of the peace as the second (appeal) instance. Volost courts also belonged to the locals. created in 1861; they dealt with the cases of peasants for minor offenses, if persons of other classes were not interested in them and if these acts were not subject to consideration by general courts. The general courts were referred to - district courts and judicial chambers as an appellate instance. This system was headed by the Senate, which was the only cassation instance for all the courts of the Russian Empire.

2.3 Peasant reform

The peasant question was the most important issue domestic policy autocracy. Alexander 1 took measures to alleviate the situation of the peasants, but his steps in solving this problem were extremely cautious. The emperor and members of the Unspoken Committee saw serf relations as a source of social tension, were convinced of the advantages of free labor over the serf, and perceived the power of the landowner over the peasants as a moral disgrace for Russia. However, they considered it impossible to take radical measures and adhered to the principle of gradualism. On December 12, 1801, a decree was issued to grant the right to own land to merchants, burghers and state peasants, who from now on could buy uninhabited lands. Already at the beginning of his reign, Alexander 1 stopped the distribution of state peasants into private hands. The law of December 12 destroyed the centuries-old landowning monopoly of the nobility, which until then alone enjoyed the right to acquire land for personal ownership. Encouraged by this first undertaking, some free-thinking landlords had a desire, entering into an agreement with their serfs, to free them to freedom by entire villages. I must say that until that moment there was no law on such a mass liberation of the peasants. Thus, the Voronezh landowner Petrovo-Solovovo made a deal with 5,001 souls of his peasants, giving them the ownership of the land they cultivated, on the condition that they pay him 1 1/2 million rubles at the age of 19. The son of the Catherine field marshal, Count Sergei Rumyantsev, decided to release 199 souls of his peasants with land by voluntary agreement with them, but at the same time he submitted to the government a draft general law on transactions between landlords and serfs. The government accepted this project, and on February 20, 1803, a decree was issued on free cultivators: the landowners could enter into an agreement with their peasants, freeing them without fail with the land in whole villages or individual families. These liberated peasants, without signing up for other states, formed a special class of "free cultivators". The law of 20 February was the first decisive expression of the government's intention to abolish serfdom.

However, this decree was more ideological than practical significance: for the entire period of Alexander's reign, less than 1.5% of serfs passed into the category of "free cultivators". That is, only 47 thousand male souls were released. But the ideas laid down in the decree of 1803 subsequently formed the basis of the reform of 1861.

In the Unspoken Committee, a proposal was made to prohibit the sale of serfs without land. Human trafficking at that time was carried out in Russia in undisguised, cynical forms. Announcements about the sale of serfs were published in newspapers. At the Makariev Fair, they were sold along with other goods, separating families. Sometimes a Russian peasant, bought at a fair, went to distant eastern countries, where until the end of his days he lived in the position of a foreign slave. Alexander 1 wanted to stop such shameful phenomena, but the proposal to prohibit the sale of peasants without land ran into the stubborn resistance of the highest dignitaries. They believed that this undermined serfdom. Without showing perseverance, the young emperor retreated. It was forbidden only to publish advertisements for the sale of people in government publications.

2.4 Reorganization of the financial policy of the state

In 1809, Speransky was entrusted with the restoration of the financial system, which, after the wars of 1805-1807. was in a state of deep distress. Russia stood on the verge of state bankruptcy. During a preliminary review of the financial situation for 1810, a deficit of 105 million rubles opened up, and Speransky was instructed to draw up a definitive and firm financial plan. Professor Balugyansky wrote an extensive note in French, which Speransky revised and supplemented. It was subjected to a joint discussion with the participation of N.S. Mordvinov, Kochubey, Kampenhausen and Balugyansky, and then in a special committee that met with the Minister of Finance Guryev. The financial plan prepared in this way was handed over by the sovereign to the chairman of the state council on the very day of its opening, January 1, 1810. Here are its main provisions: “Expenses must correspond to income. Therefore, no new expense can be assigned before a source of income commensurate with it is found The costs should be divided:

by departments;

according to the degree of need for them - necessary, useful, superfluous, superfluous and useless, and the latter should not be allowed at all;

in terms of space - general state, provincial, district and volost. No collection should exist without the knowledge of the Government, because the Government must know everything that is collected from the people and turned into expenses;

by subject purpose - ordinary and extraordinary expenses. For emergency expenses, it is not money that should be in reserve, but methods of obtaining it;

according to the degree of constancy - stable and changing costs.

According to this plan, government spending was reduced by 20 million rubles, taxes and taxes were increased, all banknotes in circulation were recognized as state debt secured by all state property, and the new issue of banknotes was supposed to be stopped. The capital for the redemption of banknotes was supposed to be formed through the sale of uninhabited state lands and an internal loan. This financial plan was approved, and a commission for the redemption of public debts was formed.

By the laws of February 2, 1810, and February 11, 1812, all taxes were raised - some doubled, others more than doubled. Thus, the price of a pood of salt was raised from 40 kopecks to a ruble; head tax from 1 rub. was raised to 3 rubles. It should be noted that this plan also included a new, unprecedented before tax - "progressive income tax". These taxes were imposed on the income of landowners from their lands. The lowest tax was levied on 500 rubles of income and amounted to 1% of the latter, the highest tax fell on estates that gave more than 18 thousand rubles of income, and amounted to 10% of the latter. But the expenses of 1810 greatly exceeded the assumption, and therefore taxes, established for only one year, were converted into permanent ones. The raising of taxes was the main reason for the people's grumbling against Speransky, which his enemies from high society managed to take advantage of.

In 1812, a large deficit again threatened. The Manifesto of February 11, 1812 established temporary increases in taxes and new duties. Responsible for all these financial difficulties and tax increases caused by the difficult political circumstances of the time, public opinion made Speransky. The government could not keep promises to stop issuing banknotes. The new tariff of 1810, in which Speransky participated, was greeted sympathetically in Russia, but angered Napoleon as a clear deviation from the continental system. Finnish affairs were also entrusted to Speransky, who, only with his amazing diligence and talent, could cope with all the duties assigned to him.

The year 1812 was fatal in the life of Speransky. The main instruments in the intrigue that killed Speransky were Baron Armfelt, who enjoyed the great favor of Emperor Alexander, and the Minister of Police, Balashov. Armfelt was dissatisfied with Speransky's attitude towards Finland: according to him, he "sometimes wants to exalt us (Finlanders), but in other cases, on the contrary, wants to let us know about our dependence. On the other hand, he always looked at the affairs of Finland as petty, minor matter. Armfelt made an offer to Speransky, forming a triumvirate together with Balashov, to seize the government of the state, and when Speransky refused and, in disgust for denunciations, did not bring this proposal to the attention of the sovereign, he decided to destroy him. Obviously, Armfelt wanted, having removed Speransky, to become the head of more than just Finnish affairs in Russia. Speransky sometimes, perhaps, was not sufficiently restrained in his reviews of the sovereign, but some of these reviews in a private conversation, brought to the attention of the sovereign, were obviously an invention of slanderers and scammers. In anonymous letters, Speransky was already accused of obvious treason, of dealing with Napoleon's agents, of selling state secrets.

At the beginning of 1812, the emperor, suspicious and very sensitive to insults, noticeably cooled off towards Speransky. Karamzin's note (1811) directed against liberal reforms and various whisperings of Speransky's enemies impressed Alexander I. his. Starting to fight Napoleon, Alexander decided to part with him. Speransky was suddenly sent into exile.

Chapter 3 Excommunication M.M. Speransky from public affairs

On March 17, 1812, after many hours and a highly emotional audience, accompanied by tears and dramatic effects, Alexander I resigned from numerous posts and exiled State Secretary M.M. Speransky. nearest employee and right hand"The emperor, for several years, in essence, the second person in the state, was on the same evening sent with the police to Nizhny Novgorod.

In a letter from there to the sovereign, he expressed his deep conviction that the plan of state transformation he had drawn up was "the first and only source of everything that happened" to him, and at the same time expressed the hope that sooner or later the sovereign would return "to the same basic ideas" . The vast majority of society greeted the fall of Speransky with great rejoicing, and only N.S. Mordvinov openly protested against his exile by resigning from the post of chairman of the economy department of the State Council and left for the countryside.

After Speransky's removal, a note in French began to circulate, the author of which claimed that Speransky intended to lead the state to decay and complete overthrow with his innovations, depicted him as a villain and traitor to the fatherland and compared him with Cromwell. This note was drawn up by Rosenkampf, who served in the commission of laws and hated Speransky because he overshadowed him with his talents, and was corrected by Armfelt.

In September of the same year, as a result of a denunciation that, in a conversation with the bishop, Speransky mentioned the mercy extended by Napoleon to the clergy in Germany, Speransky was sent to Perm, from where he wrote his famous letter of acquittal to the sovereign. In this letter, seeking to justify himself, Speransky lists with maximum completeness all possible accusations - both those that he heard from the emperor, and those that, as he believed, could remain unspoken. “I don’t know exactly what the secret denunciations against me consisted of. From the words that Your Majesty deigned to tell me when I was excommunicated, I can only conclude that there were three main points of accusation: 1) that with financial affairs I tried to upset the state; 2) bring the government into hatred with taxes, 3) reviews of the government... The cruel prejudice about my connections with France, having been supported by the era of my removal, is now the most important and, I can say, the only stain of my accusation among the people. it belongs to your justice to efface it. I dare to say affirmatively: in eternal truth before God, you are obliged, sovereign, to do this ... Finances, taxes, new institutions, all public affairs in which I had the good fortune to be your executor, everything will be justified by time, but here how can I justify myself when everything is and should be covered with mystery.

By a decree on August 30, in which it was said that "after careful and strict consideration of the actions" of Speransky, the sovereign "did not have convincing reasons for suspicion," Speransky was appointed to the post of Penza civil governor in order to give him a way "by diligent service to cleanse himself to the full ". Here he still does not leave the thought of state reforms and proposes, having cleared the administrative part, to move on to political freedom. To work out the necessary reforms, Speransky advises establishing a committee of the Minister of Finance Guryev, several governors (including himself) and 2-3 provincial marshals of the nobility.

In March 1819, Speransky was appointed Governor-General of Siberia, and the sovereign wrote in his own letter that by this appointment he wanted to clearly prove how unfairly the enemies had slandered Speransky. Service in Siberia further cooled Speransky's political dreams.

Siberian governors were notorious for their cruelty and despotism. Knowing this, the emperor instructed Speransky to carefully investigate all the lawlessness and endowed him with the broadest powers. The new governor-general had to simultaneously audit the region entrusted to him, and manage it, and develop the foundations for paramount reforms. He made himself a personal office of people devoted to him. Then he began inspection trips - he traveled around the Irkutsk province, visited Yakutia and Transbaikalia.

Speransky understood that evil was rooted not so much in people as in the very system of government in Siberia. He established the Main Department of Trade of Siberia, the Treasury Chamber to resolve land and financial issues, adopted whole line measures to encourage agriculture, trade and industry of the region. A number of important legal acts were developed and adopted. The result of Speransky's activity as the Siberian governor-general, a new chapter in the history of Siberia, was the fundamental Code for Governing Siberia, which examines in detail the structure, administration, legal proceedings and economy of this part of the Russian Empire.

In March 1821, Alexander allowed Speransky to return to St. Petersburg. He returned a completely different person. He was not a defender of the complete transformation of the political system, conscious of his strength and sharply expressing his opinions, he was an evasive dignitary who did not disdain flattering servility even to Arakcheev and did not retreat before the laudatory printed word to military settlements (1825). After the reform projects developed by him or under his supervision in Siberia received the force of law, Speransky had to see the sovereign less and less, and his hopes for a return to their former importance did not come true, although in 1821 he was appointed a member of the state council.

The death of Alexander and the uprising of the Decembrists led to another change in the fate of Speransky. He was introduced to the Supreme Criminal Court, established over the Decembrists, and played an important role in this trial.

Another important thing - the compilation of the "Complete Collection" and the "Code of Laws of the Russian Empire" - Speransky completed already in the reign of Nicholas I.

Conclusion

Thus, the place and role of Speransky in the history of the transformation of the national statehood and the formation of government legislative policy are generally recognized and are of enduring importance.

It was Speransky who stood at the origins of the creation of ministries in Russia, which are still the core of executive power. He also created the State Council and the project of the State Duma. At the same time, his plan for the radical transformation of Russian statehood was implemented only to a small extent, however, he paved the way for the subsequent streamlining of the judicial and legislative system.

Speransky managed for the first time in Russian history to codify Russian legislation - under his leadership were created " complete collection Laws” (56 volumes) and “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire” (15 volumes). At the heart of Speransky's worldview lay the desire to establish the rule of law in Russia as opposed to the usual rule of arbitrary power, even if formally clothed in the form of "law".

...

Similar Documents

short biography MM. Speransky. Plan for the transformation of the central administration, the State Council, the establishment of ministries and the Senate. Reorganization of Russia's financial policy. Excommunication from public affairs and the restoration of Speransky in the service.

test, added 02/23/2012


The place of the talented thinker and statesman M.M. Speransky in the history of Russia, his cooperation with Alexander I. Speransky's projects and directions of state reforms. Creation of ministries as the core of executive power.

control work, added 07/05/2009


Biography of Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. The first project of political reforms. The question of the need for cautious introduction of a constitutional monarchy in the country. Introduction to the code of state laws. Implementation of Speransky's reforms in practice.

term paper, added 10/23/2012


Education and entry into the circles of power M.M. Speransky. The transformation of the highest authorities. Reorganization of the financial policy of the state. Changes in the field of court ranks and promotion to ranks. Reasons for the failure of the reforms of Speransky and Alexander I.

term paper, added 03/04/2015


A brief review of the biography of M.M. Speransky. Political and legal views. Differences between civil and legal slavery. Speransky - a participant in the liberal reforms at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I. Reforms of public administration, their role and significance.

abstract, added 05/09/2016


The political situation in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Personality of Alexander I, his reforms. Biography of M.M. Speransky, his appointment as assistant to the tsar, plans and some implemented reforms, as well as further activities in exile.

abstract, added 10/27/2009


The beginning of M.M. Speransky. The project of political reforms: plans and results. Civil and political rights of the population. Elections to the State Duma, the main reasons for the State Council. The main reasons for the resignation of M.M. Speransky.

presentation, added 05/12/2012


Projects of state reforms M.M. Speransky and N.N. Novosiltsev. "Introduction to the code of state laws" as the basis of the system of state laws. The development of the system of state administration of the Decembrists. "Russian Truth" Pestel.

term paper, added 06/10/2013


MM. Speransky as an outstanding public and political figure of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries. The essence and content of the reforms proposed by Speransky, the direction and project of their implementation, the expected benefits for the state. Reasons for the failure to implement reforms.

presentation, added 10/20/2013


Brief biography of Yegor Frantsevich Kankrin, his views. Activities Kankrin as Minister of Finance. His attitude to the "Plan of Finance" M.M. Speransky. Reasons and goals for the reform of 1839-1843. Further fate of economic transformations.

Libmonster ID: RU-7859

At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, capitalist relations began to emerge in Russia; part of the Russian nobility, embarked on the path of bourgeois development and began to engage in entrepreneurial activities.

To what extent capitalist relations began to penetrate into the environment of the nobility can be judged by the fact that in the Commission of the Code of 1767-1768 there were strong frictions between the bourgeois nobility and the merchants as their competitors. Capitalist ideology began to take over the consciousness of the top of Russian society.

Marx pointed out in his Critique of Political Economy that already in the beginning of the 19th century Russia showed interest in classical political economy. He refers to a place from Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin", where even the idle nobleman Onegin

"... I read Adam Smith,
And there was a deep economy,
That is, he knew how to judge.
How does the state grow rich?
And what lives, and why
He doesn't need gold
When a simple product has...
("Eugene Onegin" by A. S. Pushkin)

In fact, in the "St. Petersburg Journal" in 1804 - 1810, the works of Adam Smith were expounded; articles by other authors appeared in this journal, for example: "On the free trade in gold and silver", "On exclusive privileges and their abuse", "On money", "On obstacles to the improvement of agriculture", "On credit, taxes". Bourgeois ideology was born along with the emergence of the capitalist mode of production in Russia.

True, in its industrial development, Russia lagged behind Western Europe for many decades. The absence of machinery and equipment, serf labor with its low productivity still had a predominant significance in Russia; nevertheless, with every decade of the 19th century, capitalist elements penetrated the economy of Russia.

If at the end of the 18th century metallurgy and the textile industry worked for export, then at the beginning of the 19th century they began to satisfy the demand of the domestic market. In 1808, spinning machines appeared, which were initially used in the Aleksandrovskaya manufactory established by the government. Along with the development of capitalist relations in the field of industry, there is a tendency of some landowners to increase the marketability of their farms. The export of bread from Russia doubled from 1800 to 1810. However, the development of capitalism was hampered by the dominance of feudal relations in the economy and autocracy, which was the bulwark of these relations. Therefore, the propaganda of capitalism had to be aimed not only at criticizing feudal relations in the field of economics, but also at criticizing the autocracy that protected them.

page 65
Radishchev at the end of the 18th century and Speransky at the beginning of the 19th century made this criticism for the first time in Russia. We must immediately make a reservation that there is a fundamental difference between criticism of Radishchev and criticism of Speransky: Radishchev conceived the destruction of serfdom and its stronghold - autocracy - through revolution, and Speransky was only a supporter of reforms; Radishchev was a republican, while Speransky was a supporter of a constitutional monarchy.

Radishchev expressed his negative attitude towards autocracy for the first time in 1772, after returning from France, he said: "Autocracy is the state most repugnant to human nature." But Radishchev clearly understood that "... the kings will not give up their power in kind and that they need to be overthrown, that there is no head where there would be more inconsistencies, if not in the royal one." In the ode "Liberty" Radishchev appears as an opponent of the feudal system.

The liberation of the peasants, as Catherine II herself said, Radishchev expected from a "mutiny of peasants." In "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow", in the chapter "Zaitsevo", Radishchev spoke out against the arbitrariness of the Duryndins, and "without the Duryndins, the world (read: absolute monarchy. - I.B.) would not have stood for three days", and Radishchev comes to the conclusion that power in the country should not belong to representatives of "noble breed, but to those who, with their useful activities, have earned the trust of the people." Radishchev was the first to publicly criticize the existing system in Russia. That is why Lenin begins the genealogy of Russian revolutionaries with Radishchev:. The Russian people are proud that Radishchev, the Decembrists and raznochintsy revolutionaries of the 1970s came out of their midst.

At the end of the 18th century, in the days when Radishchev lived, the Russian bureaucratic state flourished. All government in the capital and in the provinces was concentrated in the hands of the nobility.

This characteristic can be fully attributed to the reign of Alexander I, during which the activities of Speransky unfolded.

There is a traditional division of the reign of Alexander I into two periods: liberal - in the first years of his reign - and reactionary. This opinion was formed because Alexander I, with his characteristic hypocrisy, like all Romanovs, made liberal gestures in the first years of his reign.

"They (the nobles. - I. B.) remembered how the monarchs either flirted with liberalism, or were the executioners of the Radishchevs and" let loose "on the faithful Arakcheevs" 2 .

Bows in the direction of liberalism were necessary for Alexander in order to wash off the stain of the blood of his father, who was killed with the knowledge and with the participation of Alexander. Stepping over his father's corpse, he decided to win over to his side all those who were dissatisfied with the barracks regime of Paul I. How dissatisfied the nobles were with Paul can be seen at least from the fact that even Derzhavin wrote after his death: , a terrible look ... "Therefore, it was very important to return from exile all the nobles exiled by Paul, loosen the bridle of censorship and flirt with those nobles who desired the transformation of Russia. If we lift the veil and look at the facts of the first years of the reign of Alexander, which are considered the era of his "liberal" activity, then we will see the contours of the future emperor, who crowned his reign with the "Holy Alliance".

An example that characterizes Alexander's "liberal" activity is the secret committee that discussed the draft, according to which the ministries were to be subordinate to the senate. Alexander rejected this moderate project, as he did not want to allow himself or his officials to be controlled.

The secret committee included friends of the emperor Count Stroganov, Novosiltsev, Count Kochubey and Prince Czartoryski.

The secret committee dealt with various issues, including serfdom and the state system. Committee members warned Alexander against fundamental reforms in these matters, so as not to irritate the nobles.

On the initiative of Mordvinov, a member of the Committee of Ministers, in 1803 a project was introduced on free cultivators, according to which state and specific peasants were allowed to redeem themselves to freedom. But only 3% of the peasants took advantage of this law, since the rest did not have the means to do so.

To this one can add the "Secret Instruction of 1805" to the Committee of the Supreme Police on political supervision.

The listed facts are enough to discard once and for all the traditional version of the liberal period that allegedly existed at one time in Alexander's activity. It is very characteristic that in

1 V. I. Lenin. Op. T. XVIII, p. 81.

2 V. I. Lenin. Op. Vol. IV, p. 127.

page 66
Manifesto of March 12, upon his accession to the throne, Alexander promised to rule the country in the same way as his grandmother, who, as you know, was an ardent supporter of absolutism.

In this political situation of the first years of Alexander's reign, M. M. Speransky appeared on the scene, trying to breathe a fresh stream into the musty atmosphere of the Russian autocracy, surrounded by a bureaucratic caste from the aristocracy, who looked at their positions as their own, inviolable possessions.

Speransky was one of the first ideologists of the emerging Russian bourgeoisie. All his projects and ideas were aimed at changing social and state relations in Russia in the image and likeness of bourgeois France.

Speransky was born in 1772 in the family of a priest. After successfully graduating from the seminary, he was appointed to the post of teacher of mathematics, physics, eloquence and philosophy. Then he moved to the post of personal secretary of Prince Kurakin. In 1797, he moved to serve in the office of the Prosecutor General (the same Kurakin). At the beginning of Alexander's reign, Speransky was promoted to the rank of Secretary of State, and in 1802 he was transferred to the Ministry of the Interior.

In 1806, Alexander personally met Speransky, who made a very good impression on him. Already in 1808, Speransky was in Alexander's personal retinue during his meeting with Napoleon in Erfurt. Soon Speransky became a major statesman: he served as chairman of the "Commission of the Code", dealt with issues of communications, Polish and Livonian affairs, headed the commission of religious schools, etc.

The fight against abuses, bribery, projects to eliminate these shortcomings, with which Speransky struggled from the very first steps of his state activity, all this immediately aroused dissatisfaction among the nobles with the "impudent priest".

Speransky stood above them not only as a statesman, but also in his education: he was well versed in mathematics and literature, knew perfectly French, possessed great knowledge in the field of history and philosophy: he read Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Kant, Schelling, Fichte and others, wrote fragments on mathematics, law, ethics, philosophy, pedagogy, economics, politics and other issues.

The bourgeois French revolution had a great influence on the worldview of Speransky. All his life - before the beginning of his state activity, during his rise, and also after his fall - Speransky was distinguished by liberalism.

As a nineteen-year-old youth, during the period of the most severe reaction of Catherine II directed against the French Revolution, Speransky delivered a sermon in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, in which he addressed Catherine with the following words: “Wise sovereign, but if you are not on the path of a man ... you will descend from the throne to wipe away the tears of the last of your subjects; if your knowledge will only pave the way for your lust for power; if you use it only to skillfully gild the chains of slavery, to impose them more inconspicuously on people and to be able to show love for the people and from - under the curtain of generosity, it’s more skillful to steal his possessions at the whims of your voluptuousness and your favorites .... in order to completely erase the concept of freedom ... and assure them with fear that you are more than a man: then, with all your gifts, with all your brilliance, you will only be a happy villain."

And in the "Rules of Higher Eloquence", relating to the same period, Speransky sympathizes with Demosthenes, who led the Greek democracy in the struggle against Macedonia.

Already in the post of house secretary to Prince Kurakin, Speransky shunned the society of the aristocracy, preferring to communicate with the prince's household servants: he had a special friendship with Kurakin's valet Lev Mikhailov, whom Speransky did not forget later, when he already occupied a high position. And during his exile in Perm and Nizhny Novgorod, Speransky could be met in taverns and among the crowd. Finally, to fully characterize Speransky's liberalism, let us point out his connection with such a prominent Decembrist as Yakushkin.

Of course, Speransky's liberalism and bourgeois ideology can be most fully narrowed down on the basis of documents and works.

Unfortunately, most of the information about Speransky has to be drawn from official documents written by him in Aesopian language, so as not to arouse the anger of you.

1 Quoted from Dovnar-Zapalsky "From the history of social movements in Russia", p. 81. Ed. 1905.

page 67
juicy persons for whom they were intended.

Arguing the need to limit autocracy in the interests of expanding political and personal freedom, as well as freedom entrepreneurial activity and outlining the reforms of state institutions accordingly, Speransky appeals to natural law, morality, reason and enlightenment - to these whales of bourgeois ideology. On the basis of natural law, Speransky proves the need for civil rights, which ensure "the security of the lime and property." "It is contrary to human nature (emphasized by me. - I. B.) to assume that anyone agrees to live in a society where neither life nor property is provided with anything" 1 .

Serfdom, according to Speransky, also contradicted the natural principles of human society, since in the past people were free.

Freedom, according to Speransky, is the victory of "moral necessity" over "physical necessity."

Of course, Speransky's understanding of freedom did not go beyond the bourgeois understanding of freedom of entrepreneurial activity, freedom of the press (or, as he put it, freedom of "stamping"), granting state and judicial positions not only to the nobility, but also to representatives of the middle class.

From the concept of freedom, Speransky followed the formulation of bourgeois equality:

1. Property cannot be alienated from anyone without a trial.

2. "No one is obliged to send a material service, or pay taxes and duties, except by law or condition, and not by the arbitrariness of another" 2 .

For the triumph of reason and the natural principles of freedom, enlightenment is necessary: ​​“Enlightenment, honor (by honor Speransky understands freedom. - I. B.) and money are elements that are mainly part of good governance; without them, no institutions, no laws can have strength" 3.

Speransky proceeds from the fact that all transformations in the state should be carried out when the "time" has come for them. “So, time is the first principle and source of all political renewal. No government that is not in line with the spirit of the times can resist its all-powerful action.

All the political transformations that have taken place in Europe present us with a continuous, so to speak, struggle between the system of republics and the feudal system. As the states became enlightened, the first came into force, and the second into exhaustion.

Russia of that time was already ripe for economic and political transformations, and therefore Speransky warned Alexander that "an autocrat who does not give up autocracy would meet a firm barrier to his violence, if not in these very institutions, then in opinion, in confidence, in the habits of the people. "five .

He states that in Russia there is “civil slavery”, i.e. such a situation, “when subjects not only have no participation in the forces of the state, but, moreover, do not have the freedom to dispose of their person and property in connection with others6 .

Speransky's views on the peasant question were set forth in the Introduction to the Code of State Laws of 1809. and to the "Note on serfs" attached to it.

Speransky notes that in the XVIII century there was a sharp change in the legal status of the Russian peasantry; Engels also pointed to this line. The peasant, in the words of Speransky, has become a thing that can be alienated on a par with land, with the only difference that the land belongs to immovable property, while the peasant belongs to movable property.

Speransky points to the unprofitability of serfdom. The houses of the landowners were filled with "idle people", "dissolute undertakings" intensified, insane luxury expanded, which led to an increase in peasant duties and unpaid debts; and most importantly, serfdom, with its subsistence farming, narrows the sales market: “Who should the philistines work for, when every landowner produces everything he needs and even whimsical, although badly, although not harmoniously and unprofitably, but produces at home and even puts it up for sale”7.

Speransky emphasized that serfdom hinders the development of the economy.

1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". Vol. X, p. 29. Ed. 1899.

2 Ibid., p. 30.

3 M. Speransky "Plan of state transformation". p. 174. Ed. 1906.

4 M. Speransky "Historical Review". Vol. X, p. 11. Ed. 1399.

5 M. Speransky "Plan of State Transformation", p. 211. Ed. 1906.

6 M. Speransky "Historical Review". Vol. X, p. 6. Ed. 1890.

7 M. Speransky "Plan of State Transformation", p. 307. Ed. 1905.

page 68
It not only narrows the market, but also hinders the freedom of competition, or, as Speransky puts it, the freedom of "competition", which negatively affects the development of industry and the growth of cities.

In his criticism of serfdom, Speransky appears as a typical bourgeois. The contradictions of the serf economy can be eliminated, according to Speransky, by its final abolition. Paul's laws on the three-day corvee, Alexander's laws on free cultivators were only palliatives in this direction. They do not satisfy Speransky. In his opinion, the liberation of the peasants had to be carried out in two steps: in the first period, it was necessary to limit the definition of the duties of the peasants in relation to their owners, the conversion of the poll tax into a land tax, the establishment of courts to resolve disputes between peasants and landowners; in the second period, the peasants must be given the full right to move freely from one landowner to another.

It must be emphasized that Speransky was opposed to the liberation of the peasants without land; in his opinion, "the fate of the peasant, who performs duties according to the law and has his own piece of land in retribution, is incomparably more profitable than the position of the beans, which are already all the working people in England, France and the United States."

Moreover, he believed that it was necessary "to resell one land without peasants to the same or another owner - all such sales should be considered invalid and void and for forgery, if it is discovered, judged according to the laws" 1 .

Not without reason in the Penza province, where Speransky was appointed governor in 1816, there was a rumor about him among the peasants that, having cured himself "from dirt to high ranks and positions and being smarter than all the royal advisers, he became a serf, submitted to the sovereign a project for their release and thereby he angered all the masters who, for this, in fact, and not for any betrayal, decided to destroy him.

Speransky, like the Decembrists, realized that it was impossible to abolish serfdom without thereby hurting the autocracy, which expressed the interests of the feudal lords. Therefore, he sought to limit the autocracy.

Speransky distinguishes three forms of the state: feudal, despotic (by despotic Speransky means absolute monarchy) and Republican. The republican form, as Speransky notes, first won in England, Switzerland, Holland and France. The monarchs tried to fight against the republican forms of government, but could not win, since the despotic form of government no longer corresponded to the time. Russia, on the other hand, can avoid a violent revolution if the monarchy is limited in time. The first attempts at this limitation, as Speransky believed, were made under Alexei Mikhailovich, and then under Anna Ioannovna and Catherine II. But these attempts were not crowned with success, since the time had not yet come.

In Speransky’s view, “the most striking sign of despotic autocracy in a state is when the supreme court, which gives the general law, itself applies it to particular cases,” and he comes to the conclusion that Russia is a country of a “despotic monarchy,” he points out that everything state institutions in Russia do not have any "material connection" between them.

Moreover, all these institutions do not have an independent political force and depend exclusively "on the single will and wave of the autocratic force", they do not use legislative power and in no way can influence the autocracy. Such a situation, according to Speransky, is "the most striking sign" of a despotic state; under these conditions, all concepts of order and freedom are overthrown. Speransky concludes that the "despotic monarchy" must be replaced by a "true monarchy," that is, a constitutional one.

Speransky expected that the limitation of the monarchy in Russia, unlike in Western countries, would occur without a revolution, here it would be “not an inflammation of passions and extreme circumstances, by the beneficent inspiration of the supreme power, which, having arranged the political existence of its people, can and has all the ways to give it most correct forms.

Speransky's constitutional plans reflect, like a drop of water, his bourgeois ideology and the influence on him of the bourgeois French revolution of 1789 and the constitution of 1791, which expressed the interests of the big bourgeoisie. Imitating French models, Speransky considered it necessary to introduce active and passive suffrage - depending on

1 M. Speransky "Plan of state transformation". Vol. X, p. 320. Ed. 1905.

2 V. Semevsky "The Peasant Question in Russia in the 18th and 1st Half of the 19th Centuries". T. I. St. Petersburg. 1888.

page 69
property status. He proceeded from the idea that personal civil and political rights should belong to everyone, but not to the same extent: only people who own property should be allowed "to participate in political rights." In defense of this provision, he cites the following arguments: the law protects property, "the more a person accepts participation in property, the more naturally (my discharge. - I. B.) he cares about its protection." Such a person can create laws better than "a man without property or a bean." But if people who “have no property” are allowed to participate in political rights, then the bare and condemnation of these latter according to their number will undoubtedly prevail and, consequently, all the electoral forces of the people will pass into the hands of those who are the least in the goodness of these elections have participation and the least ways to their correct discretion ... "

“On this is based that important rule, according to which in all states, in France itself, during the revolution, the right to vote was limited only to those people who had property”1.

Based on the property status, Speransky divides the entire population of the country into three estates. Above all, the nobility, enjoying civil freedom, political rights, and, moreover, special "noble privileges. Then comes the middle class, consisting of merchants, petty bourgeois and state peasants, enjoying civil and political rights. Finally - artisans, domestic servants and landlord peasants, constituting one category of the working people, endowed only with civil rights (i.e., as in the French constitution of 1791, persons who did not own property and were in the service did not enjoy political rights).

Speransky was accused of indecision, that he proposed to carry out reforms within a few years. But this is not true. In fact, Speransky dreamed of introducing all the reforms at once: he accepted the project of gradual transformation at the insistence of Alexander. This is evidenced by a letter from Speransky from the Permian exile to Alexander, which says that it would be better to open all the reforms at the same time: then they would all appear in their size and harmony and would not produce any confusion in matters. But your majesty preferred firmness to this brilliance and considered it better to endure for a while the reproach of some confusion than to suddenly change everything, based on one theory.

According to Speransky, the monarchy should be limited to the State Duma, which is elected on the following basis. The volost councils are elected from among the owners of immovable property in the volost cities and each volost; district councils are formed from the deputies of the volost dumas, and provincial dumas are formed from the deputies of the latter; and, finally, from the deputies of the provincial duma "a legislative class is formed, under the name State Duma"3 .

Speransky attached great importance to the law, by which he understood the constitution: "The state law was adopted instead of the word of the constitution and always means the law that determines the initial rights and relations of all state classes among themselves" 4 .

With the help of the "law" - the constitution - he sought to limit autocracy: "Not to cover autocracy only with external forms, but limit it internally and with the essential force of institutions and establish sovereign power on the law not in words, but in deed itself"5.

"The goodness of government necessarily depends on the goodness of the law."

The main function of the law is to "establish the relationship of people to the general security of persons and property."

The Russian tsars understood the law in a completely different way. For example, in Paul's view, legality meant uncomplaining obedience to police orders; Alexander recognized legality, which would protect the autocratic power from the intervention of the people.

Speransky was a supporter of "hard" laws, that is, those approved by the people's representation (of course, only the first two estates), which protect property, destroy the arbitrariness of officials who interpret the laws in their own way, establish the equality of all people before the law; thus, bourgeois right is proclaimed. The absence of special legislative bodies does not make it possible to create solid laws and does not ensure their precise implementation. Hence the conclusion: all state power should be divided into legislatures.

1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". Vol. X, p. 33. Ed. 1899.

3 Ibid., pp. 38-41.

4 M. Speransky "Plan of State Transformation", p. 123. Ed. 1906.

5 M. Speransky "Historical Review". Vol. X, p. 18. Ed. 1899.

page 70
dative and executive: the legislative power should be concentrated in the hands of the State Duma and the State Council, it cannot act without the sanction of the monarch, but the latter, however, should not constrain the legislative power, so that "his (the State Council. - I.B.) were free and expressed the opinion of the people.

The judiciary must be elected. The executive power - the government - must be responsible to the legislative power.

Speransky explains the need for government responsibility to the legislature by the fact that laws can be distorted. The correct implementation of the law can only be when it is precisely codified.

“Everyone complains,” Speransky writes, “about the confusion and confusion of our civil laws. But how can they be corrected and established without firm state laws? why civil laws, when their tablets can be broken every day on the first stone of autocracy (emphasized by me. - I. B.). Complain about the complexity of finances. But how to arrange finances where there is no general trust, where there is no public establishment , the order of their guardian" 2 .

Being in the post of Deputy Minister of Justice, Speransky in 1808 began to draw up a civil code, which was based on the Napoleonic Code.

In the "Draft Code" the influence of Napoleon on Speransky most clearly affected. Speransky himself tried to deny this in order to defend himself against the accusation of treason in favor of Napoleon. And this accusation was seriously brought against him by his enemies as the most effective means to eliminate Speransky. Both in form and in content, Speransky's Code is identical to the Napoleonic Code. It is divided into three parts: the first part is devoted mainly to the family and marriage and is similar to the first book of the Napoleonic Civil Code; the second part treats of property, the third - of contracts. A large place in the Code, as well as in the Napoleonic Code, is occupied by questions of property and inheritance.

Why did the Napoleonic Code migrate from France to Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium and Russia? To this question we have an exhaustive answer from Engels.

The Napoleonic Code could serve as the basis for codification in various countries because it skillfully adapted the "old Roman law" to the bourgeois relations that were then developing in Western Europe and Russia. That is why Speransky adopted the Napoleonic Code.

Speransky also dreamed of creating a criminal code. But it is not enough to codify laws: it is necessary that the persons who execute these laws be accountable to those who approve them.

Lenin noted: "A particularly imposing reactionary institution, which attracted the attention of our revolutionaries relatively little, is the domestic bureaucracy, which de facto (in fact, in fact. - Ed.) governs the Russian state" 3 .

This bureaucracy was recruited mainly from the nobles who stood close to the court. As Speransky emphasized, they looked at their service as a source of enrichment and abused their official position. This happened because "both the answerer and the questioner are one person and one side" 4 .

According to Speransky, the ministries suffered from three main shortcomings: 1) lack of responsibility; 2) some inaccuracy and disproportion in the division of affairs; and 3) the lack of precise rules or institutions upon which the ministry should act. For example, the following are assigned to the Ministry of the Interior: the police, part of finance, salt, factories, etc.: the Ministry of Commerce collects customs duties, while this issue should be dealt with by the Ministry of Finance, and the general police are not assigned to any of the ministries at all. .

To eliminate these shortcomings, it was necessary to reorganize the ministries, which Speransky did. The manifesto of June 25, 1810 promulgated "The New Division of State Affairs in the Executive Order", that is, the decree on the transformation of ministries, and the manifesto of June 25, 1811, established the following ministries according to a new project: external affairs, military land and maritime affairs, national industry.Finance, police, education and ways

1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". Vol. X, p. 19. Ed. 1899.

2 M. Speransky "Plan of state transformation".

3 V. I. Lenin. Op. Vol. I, p. 186.

4 M. Speransky "Plan of State Transformation", p. 135. Ed. 1905.

page 71
messages, - in addition, a department of spiritual affairs was created.

"Three forces move and govern the state: the power of legislative, executive and judiciary" 1 . Therefore, after the legislative and executive powers are reorganized, it is necessary to start transforming the third force - the courts, where abuses and bribery were especially felt, where the laws, as Speransky put it, were known only to clerks, who each interpreted them in their own way.

In 1811, Speransky submitted to the State Council a draft on the formation of a governing Senate, which was to be the executive branch of the State Council. Along with the senators appointed by the monarch, elected senators must also sit here. This proposal aroused strong opposition from dignitaries, who believed that the election of senators "is contrary to the mind of autocratic rule."

Of all the projects of Speransky, only the opening of the State Council was carried out (January 1, 1810).

Speransky's activities were not limited only to reforms in the field of public life: he had many responsibilities, in particular, he was instructed to take measures to improve finances, which by this time had fallen into disarray.

The continuous wars of the 18th century and the ever-increasing expenses of the empresses aggravated this crisis. Already Catherine had to resort to the establishment of a banknote bank, which issued 157 million banknotes. During her reign, the rate of banknotes fell to 70 kopecks.

Under Alexander, the financial condition of Russia continued to deteriorate: the wars with France, Turkey and Sweden greatly depleted the treasury.

The situation was further complicated by the consequences of Tilsit, as a result of which foreign trade was under the sign of a passive balance and the rate of banknotes by 1810 fell to 25 kopecks.

On January 1, 1810, at the opening of the State Council, Speransky made a proposal to take measures to eliminate financial ruin. The main reason for the financial ruin, according to Speransky, was the systematic deficit of the state budget. As measures to eliminate this situation, he proposed:

1) withdrawal of banknotes and their replacement with full-fledged state signs; 2) the reduction of certain items of expenditure, 3) the introduction of a special tax of 50 kopecks per soul of landlord and appanage peasants.

In 1810, a deficit of more than 100 million rubles was again revealed, the same phenomenon was observed in 1811 in connection with preparations for war. Speransky proposed in February 1812 to introduce a progressive tax on large landholdings. Speransky borrowed the idea of ​​a progressive tax from the French enlighteners of the 18th century: Montesquieu, Rainol and Rousseau. Speransky's tax policy increased state revenues from 1810 to 1812 two and a half times. The increase in taxes embittered the nobles, and they took up arms against Speransky.

It is no coincidence that the day after Speransky's exile (March 18, 1812), a heated debate took place at a meeting of the State Council about the further functioning of the progressive tax. However, it was canceled only in 1819, that is, 7 years after the fall of Speransky.

The introduction of a progressive tax was the last event in the activities of Speransky: on March 17, 1812, he was removed from public service and sent into exile.

When analyzing the reasons for the failure of Speransky's reform, one must discard the existing opinion that the main reason for the fall of Speransky was his "criminal" connection with Napoleon. Not only friends, but also enemies of Speransky did not believe in his connection with Napoleon.

In a conversation with Vasilchenkov in 1820, when Alexander decided to return Speransky to St. Petersburg, he stated that he never believed Speransky's betrayal and that he only sent him out to satisfy public opinion.

Alexander's cooling towards Speransky came much earlier than the time when he learned about Speransky's "treason". As early as 1811, Alexander abandoned his plans. In a conversation with de Senglen, he said: "Speransky involved me in stupidity. Why, I agreed to the state council and the title of secretary of state. It was as if I separated myself from the state. This is stupid and that was not in Lagarnov's plan"2.

Relations between Alexander and Speransky escalated after one of the conversations about the impending

1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". Vol. X, p. 4. Ed. 1899.

2 Schilder "Alexander I". T. III. page 366.

page 72
of the war with Napoleon, Speransky, analyzing the real balance of forces, came to the conclusion that all the advantages in this war in military-technical terms would be on the side of Napoleon, that Russia could achieve an advantage only if Alexander refused to personally lead the war, transferring their powers to the convened "Boyar Duma".

From this conversation, the tsar concluded that Speransky continued to insist on limiting autocracy.

A complex intrigue began against Speransky, which was conducted by people of very dubious honesty and political adventurers. Speransky was attacked by: Baron Armfeld, who repeatedly fled from Sweden and was sentenced to death in absentia for intrigues at the court of the Swedish kings; Balashov, the Minister of Police, who did not disdain any dirty means for his enrichment and who, together with Armfeld, dreamed of carrying out a coup d'état in Finland; Duke de Serra Captiola, protege of the Neapolitan king deposed by Napoleon, exposed by Speransky as Napoleon's spy, French emigrants, etc., etc.

Armfeld went on a provocation: he devoted Speransky to his plan to carry out a coup d'état in Finland together with Balashov and tear it away from Russia and invited him to join the conspiracy. Speransky refused this adventure, but did not report this to Alexander. This fact played a well-known role in the downfall of Speransky.

In addition, shortly before the fall of Speransky, Alexander received an anonymous letter proving that Speransky was an agent of Napoleon, received from him a huge amount of diamonds and other valuables. This letter is believed to have been written by Rostopchin. The accusation of treason in the context of the impending war was the surest means by which Speransky could be removed from business.

On March 17, Speransky had a two-hour audience with Alexander. After his return home, Speransky saw a mail carriage near his house, and the Minister of Police Balashov was waiting for him in the apartment. All his papers were sealed and he was asked to leave Petersburg immediately. He did not even have time to say goodbye to his relatives and was sent under police supervision to Nizhny Novgorod, from where he was transported to Perm; and in 1816 Speransky was appointed governor of Penza; in March 1819 he was appointed governor-general of Siberia; in 1821 Speransky returned from Siberia to St. Petersburg with the results of his revision of Siberian affairs and with an extensive project of Siberian reform.

After returning to St. Petersburg, Speransky became a simple performer; all documents that came out from under his pen were not signed by Alexander without prior consultation with Arakcheev.

Speransky set against himself major government officials, each of whom considered the ministry entrusted to him "for a granted village ... Anyone who touched this property was an obvious Illuminati and a traitor to the state" 1, "if people performing heat and other public functions will to be valued not by one's official position, but by one's knowledge and merits - then doesn't this logically lead inevitably to freedom of public opinion and public control, discussing this knowledge and these merits? only does autocratic Russia hold out?"2.

From these words of Lenin, it also becomes clear why the nobles accepted with hostility Speransky's project on a mandatory university qualification for nobles entering the civil service.

The failure of Speransky's reforms must also be explained by the discontent of the nobility foreign policy Alexander after Tilsit. The nobles saw Napoleonic principles in all Speransky's reforms.

The years of Speransky's transformational activity - 1809 -1812 - coincided with the crisis of Franco-Russian relations. The irritation of the nobility against the continental blockade reached its highest limits, therefore everything French: ideas, people, laws - was hated by the nobles. In order to calm them down, Alexander, as he himself admitted, had to remove Speransky from business.

Speransky was aware of the discrepancy between the existing orders of the given time, but "the means for eliminating conscious evil must lie - in a more or less developed form - in the very changed conditions of production. The human mind cannot invent these means; it must discover them in the given material phenomena of production"3 .

Speransky fell because in Russia the material prerequisites for victory were not yet sufficiently developed.

1 Letter from Speransky from Perm. Quoted by Schilder "Alexander I". Vol. III, p. 518.

2 V. I. Lenin. Vol. IV, p. 316.

3 F. Engels "Anti-Dühring". Sobr. op. T. XIV, p. 270.

page 73
bourgeois order. On the other hand, there were also subjective reasons for the fall of Speransky.

Speransky had few like-minded people: the Russian bourgeoisie, whose ideologist he was, was small and weak, Speransky did not believe in the peasantry, since it was not yet "enlightened".

Speransky's reforms were not implemented. Nevertheless, this does not detract from their historical significance and progressive character, since they were primarily directed against absolutism, serfdom and the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy.

“In Russia, the remnants of medieval, semi-feudal institutions are still so infinitely strong (compared to Western Europe), they lie with such an oppressive yoke on the proletariat and on the people in general, holding back the growth of political thought in all estates and classes, that one cannot but insist on the enormous importance for the workers to fight against all kinds of feudal institutions, against absolutism, estates and bureaucracy" (my detente. - I. B.) 1 .

Only half a century after the further development of capitalism in industry and agriculture flock incompatible with feudal relations, after the defeat of the Russians in Crimean war, who revealed all the rottenness and weakness of the feudal system, after the peasant uprisings in the first half of the 19th century shook the feudal system - only after all this, tsarism and the feudal lords, fearing that the peasants "de began to emancipate themselves from below", carried out the reform of 1861 "from above ", only after this did the autocracy take the first step towards a bourgeois monarchy.

1 V. I. Lenin. Op. T. I. p. 186.

©

Permanent address of this publication:

https://site/m/articles/view/SPERANSKY-AND-HIS-REFORMS

Publisher:

Anna Sergeychik →

Search publisher's materials in systems: Libmonster (worldwide) . Google. Yandex